Oregon shooter's dad: 'That's what guns are, the killers'

You have a person that plans on doing one of the most heinous acts of going into a crowded place with innocent people and kill them. What makes you believe they would follow the laws about obtaining a gun? if they are that deranged, what would stop them from stealing one, or using other methods of killing a lot of people?

It is my understanding that this killer was never diagnosed as having a mental illness. How would the current rules or new rules prevent him from having guns? Are we to stop people from buying guns if they have been angry at some point in their life? What about verbally aggressive? How long would the ban be? Life?

My point is that i'm sure everybody on this planet probably has a time in their life that might indicate they should not have a gun. That does not mean that they would do anything like this. Identifying those that would do this is not an easy task and many law abiding citizens would be swept up in any blanket legislation.

 

Have any of these progressive fascists ever seen a Bud K catalog?

Half the crap you can by legally from Bud K is 100% lethal... Had that guy shopped at Bud K he could have killed more people with those weapons.

 

What universe is this?

Swords and Machetes can do some serious damage.

Hell, in Japan and China people go on spree killings with swords all the time and they rack up bodies.. One guy killed 30+ people before he was caught.

 

Guilty with no way to prove innocence... Nice world you crave....

 

I am not the one who advocates for throwing anyone into a mental institution who shows the first sign of a mental problem, be it only depression. It is, however, those who want to hold on to their guns and the right to buy them without any checks, who seem to focus on the mental health aspects. So, in you opinion, what should be done with someone like the Oregon shooter who could perceived as a threat due to irrational behavior before the shooting? Throw them in the mental ward? Take their guns away? Isn't that declaring them guilty before the deed is done?

 

I'm not the one that brought up locking people up. There are so many different levels of depression to simple say the word and look for answers is beyond ignorant. Everyone gets depressed.

 

WOW, what an idiot. He pretends it was the guns fault, he's sure of it! But when ask about his own son's mental health he's clueless? WTF, he's the father! Obviously, CNN loves this guy's anti-gun sentiment, but they're mostly idiots themselves, so......

 

Let's see the statistics on this one.

- - - Updated - - -

It also correlates with a direct increase in violent crime and rape, example 1. Australia 2. UK (Crime capital of the civilized world) 3. Mexico

- - - Updated - - -

Why don't you worry about your crime rates instead of our firearms, since you know, the UK has a higher rate of violent crime than the US.

 

Sorry, but I'm not going to have sympathy for the murderer's father angry that police shot and killed his son - nor agree to his making an excuse for his murderous son on the existence of guns. That same logic could be used to try to excuse arsonists to blame the existence of matches and lighters - declaring "there are BILLIONS of matchbooks and lighters!"

The primary purpose of firearms is to stop people like his son. Unfortunately, all mass murderer victims have been unarmed and unable to defend themselves or anyone else. And firearms just in the USA prevent 2,500,000 major crimes and 200,000 rapes PER YEAR. It is unfortunate so many were killed before GUNS stopped him.

 

Guns are inhabited by evil demons that will possess your very soul if you touch one and will urge you on to commit mayhem and murder. Should you want to possess a gun, the only way to protect yourself from these demons is to carry a special piece of metal issued by a Holy Government Agency that has the magic powers to contain the demon so long as said possessor of that badge is also in the employ of the HGA.

At least, that's how the fanatic anti-gun nuts seem to think.

 

What does a 10 year old holding a replica gun in a community center in South Armagh have to do with anything ?

 

The greater question is if someone who is mentally ill open fires on a crowd of people, do you want them all to be totally defenseless and unable to stop him? Without exception, every victim of mass shooting has been unarmed - nor has there ever been a mass shooting where people were openly carrying firearms.

Who is safest to have a firearm? Trained police? No. I've posted the government sourced statistics many times already that of people who are innocent being shot and killed by police is 11% of all police gun killings. It is only 2% for private citizens - and private citizens shoot far more criminals in the act stopping the criminal than do police. By a factor of over 500%, private citizens are safer with guns than police. And those citizens stopped a crime, where police are often just investigating a crime or making an arrest after-the-fact - meaning having not protected the victim - and on top of that it takes vastly more for a private citizen to justify shooting someone than police - though bad police shooting are still over 500% higher than for private citizens.

2,500,000 major crimes and 200,000 rapes are prevented each year by the mere presence of a firearm. But the media and anti-gunners don't care about those would be victims. They only care about the criminals not stopped (meaning no one armed to stop them) - making the absurd claim this is proof people should be more disarmed - meaning they REALLY want to make more victims, not less.

 

It must be assumed the threats are legitimate as this young man announced the day before on 4chan a school in the northwest was going to be attacked. These nuts want an audience and it's typically found on this 4chan website..it is the mecca for these type of individuals who think they are posting in the safety of anonymity.

If an on-line threat is made to shoot up a theater or school, it must be taken seriously. The Feds have the technology to track down the source.

A terrorist is a terrorist...I don't understand why the Feds have no issue monitoring cell phone conversatioins, but are reluctant to "spy" on forums and boards where clear threats are being made.

.

 

Yes. Yet people insist on blaming the gun.

 

Notice how the father accepted zero blame for the fact that his offspring turned out to be a mass murderer. I would venture to say that it is the parents who first and foremost should shoulder the blame for raising a psychopath. It would be interesting to find out how many of these mass murderers lately come from broken or dysfunctional homes. Maybe broken homes and dysfunctional families kill people and not the guns. Didn't mama encourage or at least turned a blind eye to her son's strange obsession with guns? I think daddy would say anything to get his mug in front of the cameras.

 

I am sure you can produce many more statistics from pro-gun sites that support the notion that more guns = less mass shootings. In the meantime, the NRA has lobbied for congress to defund research into gun-related public health statistics. I wonder why this is? Is the NRA afraid that their made-up statistics could be wrong?

In the meantime, you didn't address any of my questions that I asked about responsible gun ownership. How can one tell that a gun owner is responsible? When does one know he/she will go over the cliff and become irresponsible?

- - - Updated - - -

Interesting! Isn't one of the objective for gun rights to defend oneself from tyrannical government? Yet, at the same time you are advocating for tyrannical government to spy even more into regular people's lives?

 

How is a threat a part of a regular person's life? Does the average person go online and send out veiled threats about "don't go to work tomorrow or go to school."

You can't yell fire in a crowded theater either or threaten the life of a public official. You make threats online, say for example "don't go to school if you live in the Northwest." A veiled threat...you give up any rights to privacy. That is a terrorist act. Why should the internet be any different than the limits to free speech elsewhere. This shooter in Oregon made a threat the night before. The Feds have algorithms than can detect keywords out of millions perhaps billions of emails etc. Had the Feds acted on this shooters threat sooner, they could have stopped it. You get their IP, you slap a court order on the internet provider to give up the identity. Proxy? Forums should ban proxy IPs, no more hiding behind your keyboard if your intent is to threaten another.

Guns are not the issue, it's noting the red flags these nut jobs put out there...frequently online.

Threats are not part of the 1st Amendment as freedom of expression. Threats need to be treated as genuine. You can bet once a few of these nuts gets carted off to jail prior to acting out, the posers will learn not to make veiled threats online and assume they can get away with it.

The motivation for these nuts is attention, and they give off red flags typically before they act out.

 

I've responded to this before and I will do so again, for your benefit. In Britain throwing a brick through a window is classified as a 'violent crime'. Different countries have different classifications of crimes so your comment really needs some more investigation instead of relying, as you clearly did, on lurid headlines.

 

In the U.S. throwing a brick through a window is a violent crime.

 

Post #44.

Beat me to it

 

Lurid headlines, you mean the statistics from your own government. As I've posted them many a time before.

 

In context, I assume that poster was referring to murderous individuals, not gun owners in general.

 

Very true.

No, are you?

Would I defend myself against police coming to take my firearms? Of course not, that's absurd. I would, however, keep and own firearms secretly.

If I knew I was unstable and might do something against my will, I'd probably chuck em all - but if the state deemed me dangerous and I did not, of course I would keep firearms.

The onus (as always) should be on the state to show that you have either;

1. Already initiated force against others.
2. Have displayed a clearly imminent intent to initiate force against others.

... before they coerce you. It's not enough for there to be some theoretical threat somewhere down the line - the person must imminently threaten harm.

So no, I would not use mental illness solely as a means to take away gun ownership rights - although many would certainly meet that qualification.

Uhh... I suppose. I live in Australia, so it's sort of necessary to abandon the law as the determinant of what makes you a responsible gun owner or not. I have no issue with black market firearms, I have no issue with shooting where the state does not permit it.

I do however have a very stringent safety policy when I shoot. I care about what is safe, not what is legal.

You cannot. Nobody can. All I can do is tell you what I think crosses the line. Would I forcibly disarm someone who has a mental illness? No. Would I forcibly disarm someone who has a mental illness and has threatened imminent harm against others? Yes.

I do not feel that the mental illness is in itself relevant.

[hr][/hr]

And so I'll ask you a question: would you condone forcibly disarming someone solely because of a diagnosis of mental illness? Any mental illness? What would be your relevant metric for determining which mental illnesses justify such action?

Oh yes, before I forget - I appreciate the respectful discussion. It's somewhat rare on issues like these

 

Last week a lethally venomous snake was threatening the life of my family, so I blew its head off. Seemed a pretty damn decent solution to that problem: using a shovel you run a greater risk of a bite.

The next day I went hunting rabbits. Killed them fairly dead, put food on my table. Seemed a pretty damn decent solution to that problem.

3 weeks ago I was bored. I went out into the middle of nowhere, and against a 50ft tall sand dune shot some melons, cans, etc with slugs, buckshot and 7.5s. Seemed a pretty damn solution to that problem.

1. The onus should be on the state to show that someone has imminently threatened harm before they take away their firearms/prohibit their future purchase.

2. The state has no justification for restricting the rest of us who have not shown such malicious intent as a means to prevent those who have from owning firearms.

(*)(*)(*)(*) happens. Deal with it. Give me liberty or give me death, etc.

Quite the opposite. You weren't directly addressing me, but now that you are - know that 'casual acceptance of murder and gang culture' is the complete antithesis of my position.

I value human life plenty. I just don't value it more than human liberty. It's not okay to coerce all as a means of coercing the few who deserve it.

[hr][/hr]

Really, just take my position on drugs and change "drugs" to "guns". I have posted extensively on both.

 

Who cares what the loser's old man said. He's a progressive kook just like his dumb ass kid was.